U T OF DADRA AND HAVELI Vs. FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 14,2006

U.T. OF DADRA AND HAVELI Appellant
VERSUS
FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

P.CHHAGANLAL DAGA V. M.SANJAY SHAW [REFERRED TO]
JAMATRAJ KEWALJI GOVANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLALSHAMJISONI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. NARCOTIC CELL [REFERRED TO]
RAM JEET VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SITARAM SAHU [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DUNI CHAND VS. GODAWARI [LAWS(HPH)-2017-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ANISH VS. STATE (NCT) DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-520] [REFERRED]
BISHURAI DEBBARMA ALIAS BISRAI DEBBARMA ALIAS BISU DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
AG VS. SHIV KUMAR YADAV [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH JUMMAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT RAJ VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMKUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-661] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. BOOTA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
PUJA PADMANAVA PANDA SAMANTA VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2018-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SOOD VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-255] [REFERRED TO]
K RAVICHANDRAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TMCH POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-453] [REFERRED TO]
JULIA ALIAS ULIYA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
JAGSEER SINGH ALIAS SONU ALIAS JOGA ALIAS DAVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
I HASSAN AND ANOTHER VS. AJAY DUTT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-4-210] [REFERRED]
VILAS N PAWGI VS. S LPILLAI [LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
KARIM HASAN PATEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAJARAM JAYWANT SHELKE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI V. AMBANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
NAMITA MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-12-83] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJEET KAUR KALSI VS. NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-233] [REFERRED TO]
SOHIL AHAMED, S/O. SANAULLA VS. R. RAMACHANDRA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKI VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
SARANYA VS. STATE BY INSPERCTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PERAMBALUR AND DISTRICT. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH DIWAKAR VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL TANDI VS. STATE OF C. G. [LAWS(CHH)-2021-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S/O MAHIPAT SALUNKHE VS. SAHEBRAO S/O KASHINATH SALUNKHE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-137] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR IQBAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR. [LAWS(UTN)-2007-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
DINA NATH CHAMAR SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA MOCHI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR SANKHYAN VS. M P VAIDYA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MANCHALI VAIDYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-160] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL AKA LEELA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-335] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH SON OF NIRANJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-442] [REFERRED]
SUMITRA DEVI VS. KAPOOR CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2023-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-10-486] [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHESWAR ENTERPRISES VS. DEEKAY MOTORS [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR IQBAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-297] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV NANDA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-179] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NAYAK SINGH VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
VINCENT; SIKANTHAR MOHIDEEN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-267] [REFERRED]
ICHHASHANKAR VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-2-233] [REFERRED TO]
JEESHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA KUMARI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MOHANAND NAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KANT SHARMA VS. SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2012-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAM MEHAR & OTHERS ETC. ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEB VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-126] [REFERRED TO]
DOT RAM VS. KISAN CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER LAL VS. URMILA THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-256] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-142] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
SH.I.HASSAN VS. AJAY DUTT [LAWS(P&H)-2012-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. GULSHER ALI [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAMBHAI MADAVLAL PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-189] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET VS. RENUSINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-93] [REFERRED TO]
CHETRAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-252] [REFERRED TO]
JOGEN BORAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHARMA VS. BASANT RAM VERMA [LAWS(HPH)-2017-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR PODDAR VS. AVIK BHATTACHARJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2009-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR BIND VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-157] [REFERRED]
PIAR SINGH VS. DISHANT CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-6-38] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. MAMUDEEN [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
NASIM KHAN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-119] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAI HIRABHAI VADHIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-175] [REFERRED TO]
MD SALAUDDIN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2019-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
GOMATHI VS. LAKSHMI SARASWATHI FINANCES [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-121] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEENA BANOO VS. STATE OF JK [LAWS(J&K)-2019-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHRA SODI, BHIMA SODI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-252] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. SUNIL N.S. @ PULSAR SUNI [LAWS(KER)-2022-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
IRSHAD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSEN PAPLI VS. J. BALASINGH SAMUEL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-10-371] [REFERRED TO]
HARNAM SINGH VS. BHUSHAN METALLICS LTD. [LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHREEN HIRE PURCHASE PVT LTD VS. KULWINDAR KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2017-6-128] [REFERRED TO]
ACURA GLASS TILES ENTERPRISES VS. S.S. RAY [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-180] [REFERRED TO]
KALUWA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-266] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2004 of Bombay High Court by which the revision preferred by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, summoning Shri S.P. Marwah, the then Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa under Section 311, Cr. P.C. was set aside.
(3.)One Damabhai Lasyabhai Choudhary lodged an FIR at 8.30 p.m. on 29.4.1996 at P.S. Khanvel alleging that on the instigation of accused A-7, A-8 and A-9 accused A-1 to A-6 had assaulted the deceased Bapjibhai Bhoya and caused injuries to some others. The respondent herein Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan is A-7 and he was assigned the role of instigation Maro Maro, Pakdo Pakdo. After usual investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the nine accused and the case was committed to the Court of Session. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. which was recorded after close of the prosecution evidence, the respondent took a plea of alibi and submitted that he is a prominent member of a political party and at the time of the incident, he was present in the chamber of Shri S.P. Marwah, Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, as a meeting had been called there. The respondent examined two witnesses, viz., DW.1 O.P. Misra, Deputy Collector and DW.2 R.N. Parmar, Executive and Sector Magistrate, Dadra, in support of his plea of alibi that he was present in the chamber of Shri S.P. Marwah. The Special Public Prosecutor, thereafter, moved an application, purporting to be one under Section 311, Cr.P.C., praying that Shri S.P. Marwah, the then Collector of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and currently posted as Director, Jal Nigam Board, New Delhi, may be summoned and examined as a witness. The application was opposed by respondent No.7 by filing a written reply on the ground, inter alia, that he had raised a plea of alibi at the very beginning, which was very well known to the investigating agency, but no investigation in that direction had been made and the defence taken by him in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was not a sudden or unexpected one. It was also submitted that the prosecution was not entitled to fill in a lacuna by moving an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C for the purpose of summoning a witness. The learned Sessions Judge, after referring to the authorities cited by the counsel for the parties, allowed the application moved by the Special Public Prosecutor by the order dated 12.8.2004 and the relevant part of the order which has a bearing on controversy in dispute is being reproduced below :-
"The gist of all these authorities is that the best available evidence should be brought before the Court to prove point in issue. However, it is left either to the prosecution or to the defence to establish its respective case by adducing the best available evidence. Under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is the duty of the Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, provisions of Section 311 of the Code can be invoked by exercising judicial discretion at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding.

This Court is conscious of the fact that matter is very old and is lingering on some or the other ground since long. But this alone will not be sufficient to reject an opportunity to the prosecution particularly when the defence has kept behind the best available evidence of the then Collector who had convened the meeting according to accused No.7 in which he was present.

Moreover, it will not cause any prejudice to accused No.7 as alibi is his own defence. He will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Thus in order to find out the truth, evidence of the then Collector is necessary.

In the interest of just and fair decision application is to be allowed."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.